Should we shut down Canada's nuclear reactors?

[Moonbox]

I'm not sure why do we need such risky power as nuclear. What will the future generations do with the waste?

Because it provides enormous amounts of clean energy.

The waste is stored safely and the radioactivity doesn't leak out.

[eyeball]

Exactly. So why are you a proponent of it?

I'm not. I'm proposing a verifiably transparent chain of information.

[segnosaur]

No. You can put up multiple power solutions in various parts of a city. I've gone over this in other threads. Every high rise building can throw solar panels on the top.

Solar panels are not very efficient, and you would need a very large area to provide significant power. (This would make city use especially pointless, since there is a high density of power use to available surface area.)

Along with wind power. Diversifying and decentralizing your power grid is the best solution. One nuclear plant goes down, everyone in the area is out of power. If you have multiple solutions that are decentralized, you stand a better chance of avoiding catastrophe.

As others have pointed out... even if you had 'local' wind/solar power, the unreliability of these types of sources mean that you will still need a rather significant electrical grid capable of transferring power from hundreds of kilometers away.

Nuclear plants don't have a huge environmental impact? Nuclear plants are not an environmental nightmare? Nuclear power plants can store energy?

Its not that nuclear plants 'store' energy; its that nuclear plants can generate power constantly.

On the other hand, Wind/solar is inherently unreliable... calm days stop wind generators and solar has problems with night time and cloudy days. So they generally need some method to store power for times when they are ineffective.

And there are ways to store energy, batteries.

Batteries do not have the capacity to store significant amount of energy.

Perhaps using water resivoirs might make sense (use extra power to pump water to a higher level, and use hydroelectric turbines when the solar/wind power fails. But that introduces all sorts of inefficiencies.

Sure we need to be smart about it. But you have less environmental risk from modern batteries than you do with one single nuclear plant.

What type of battery are you referring to?

Lithium-ion? Lithium is corrosive and there is the possibility of it causing birth defects.

Lead-acid? Again, components are corrosive, and lead can cause all sorts of brain problems.

How long do you need to store the nuclear waste for?

A very very long time. However, with current and proposed technology (e.g. recycling, use of thorium, etc.) its possible that the amount of nuclear waste will be very small.

Sure we've only seen 2 nuclear plants blow up, and sure we've seen a handful of minor incidents around the planet with nuclear power. but when you have a problem, it tends to be a huge problem.

There's only been one "huge" problem, and that was Chernobyl. 3 Mile Island was a relatively minor event (and its been estimated that there will be no increase in cancers due to the accident).

See: http://www.cracked.com/article_16078_5-most-ridiculously-over-hyped-health-scares-all-time.html

My personal plan in the next 5 years is to buy a house somewhat outside of town, and make it self sufficient. So I am not dependent 100% on a centralized system. And when the centralized system has a problem, at least I won't be left in the dark.

Of course, by living outside of town, you might end up requiring more gas (i.e. fossil fuel) to commute, and its possible that your home will be less energy efficient (after all, in the winter you wouldn't benefit from the "urban heat island" effect of the city.)

Not to mention that if there is a problem with the centralized system, those outside the major city areas will probably be given a lower priority for restoring power.

And lets face it: There have been 2 recent "major" power problems since I started working around 2 decades ago: The ice storm (around 3 weeks of power problems in some areas although it never went down at my house), and the 2003 blackout (power out for 5 days in some areas, but it affected me for only 1 day.) That's around a 99.5% availability ratio. Is it really worth uprooting your life, adding hours of possible commute time, only to avoid the 0.5% of time that you might be "out of power"? (Not that some people might not like country living for other reasons, but to move out of the city just because you want to be 'self sufficient' when it comes to power doesn't seem like the best laid out plan.)

Edited March 15, 2011 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

I'm not sure why do we need such risky power as nuclear.

Every power source has some risks risks associated with it... Coal/oil/gas release CO2, can contribute to smog, etc. Solar requires large quantities of land (goodbye trees). Wind may cause problems with wildlife. Hydroelectric causes widespread flooding and environmental changes.

What is necessary is to gauge the risks of each possible generating technology relative to its potential generating capacity. Yeah, nuclear has risks/drawbacks, but it also has a huge generating capacity.

What will the future generations do with the waste?

In some cases waste can be reprocessed and fed back into the reactor.

Ultimately the amount of waste produced is very very small compared to the amount of power produced. (e.g. there will be a lot less radioactive waste released from generating power that I'm using compared to carbon dioxide/radon gas/ash from burning coal for the same amount of power.

[GostHacked]

Solar panels are not very efficient, and you would need a very large area to provide significant power. (This would make city use especially pointless, since there is a high density of power use to available surface area.)

With more investment, they can be efficient. They have come a long way already. since introduced. A solar farm is being built just outside of Ottawa. We've been reliant on the current system for so long, that people have not had the need to think differently.

As others have pointed out... even if you had 'local' wind/solar power, the unreliability of these types of sources mean that you will still need a rather significant electrical grid capable of transferring power from hundreds of kilometers away.

More of a mesh grid would help solve that issue between multiple sites. That is essentially how the Internet works. You got to take out a good portion of it before it starts to become a problem. The solar farm outside of Ottawa is less than 50kms away.

Its not that nuclear plants 'store' energy; its that nuclear plants can generate power constantly.

I won't dispute that, it makes sense.

On the other hand, Wind/solar is inherently unreliable... calm days stop wind generators and solar has problems with night time and cloudy days. So they generally need some method to store power for times when they are ineffective.

So, in a house, and this tech already exists, at night you can use the batteries to generate the stored power, or use grid power. And with a combo solution you can have wind, or solar, or both on a good day. it's a multiple/integrated solution approach.

Batteries do not have the capacity to store significant amount of energy.

Actually they do. Batteries are getting smaller and smaller and more efficient and with less charge time. They do have a life span, but can be reconditioned back up to a certain level (I do this every day with the batteries we use for our mobile IT equipment)

Perhaps using water reservoirs might make sense (use extra power to pump water to a higher level, and use hydroelectric turbines when the solar/wind power fails. But that introduces all sorts of inefficiencies.

And that also comes with an environmental impact. The largest impact we've seen with a hydro electric dam is China's 3 Gorges Dam. A million people were relocated because their towns would be under a couple hundred feet of water. That also displaces wildlife and their habitation.

What type of battery are you referring to?

You know good point. I have not looked into that in some time. I'll see what I can dig up.

Lithium-ion? Lithium is corrosive and there is the possibility of it causing birth defects.

Lead-acid? Again, components are corrosive, and lead can cause all sorts of brain problems.

Almost everything we use has its downfalls. And we have lead acid batteries in every car.

A very very long time. However, with current and proposed technology (e.g. recycling, use of thorium, etc.) its possible that the amount of nuclear waste will be very small.

We had a thread about thorium reactors here, a good deal poo poo'd the idea. I think I started it.

There's only been one "huge" problem, and that was Chernobyl. 3 Mile Island was a relatively minor event (and its been estimated that there will be no increase in cancers due to the accident).

Of course, by living outside of town, you might end up requiring more gas (i.e. fossil fuel) to commute, and its possible that your home will be less energy efficient (after all, in the winter you wouldn't benefit from the "urban heat island" effect of the city.)

I live in Ottawa, and there is no benefit of an urban heat island in the winter. None. -20 C is still -20 C.

Not to mention that if there is a problem with the centralized system, those outside the major city areas will probably be given a lower priority for restoring power.

All the more reason to be self sustaining or multiple smaller solutions. It's something you hope you will never need, but will be more than glad when you have it to fall back on it.

And lets face it: There have been 2 recent "major" power problems since I started working: The ice storm (around 3 weeks of power problems in some areas), and the 2003 blackout (power out for 5 days in some areas, but it affected me for only 1 day.) That's around a 99.5% availability ratio. Is it really worth uprooting your life, adding hours of possible commute time, only to avoid the 0.5% of time that you might be "out of power"? (Not that some people might not like country living for other reasons, but to move out of the city just because you want to be 'self sufficient' when it comes to power doesn't seem like the best laid out plan.)

Hope for the best, plan for the worst. Sure there are scenarios like Japan where everything goes wrong and even the infrastructure gets washed away, but I feel it would be better than what we currently have.

[segnosaur]

Why not? NO matter what happen, coal powered plant can be left abandoned and nothing happen.

Perhaps.... however, while the coal plant is running it will produce:

- air pollution, contributing to the green house effect, acid rain, etc.

- radiation (yeah, you get more radiation from your local coal plant than you do from your local nuclear plant)

- fly ash (which can cause some pretty bad ecological problems. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill)

This also doesn't include all those people killed during mining operations (and since you need a greater quantity of coal than Uranium, there will be more deaths per unit of power generated)

Yea, we do have to worry about problems with nuclear power, but we need to evaluate the alternatives as well.

We've seen it during Chernobyl. The effects are still there, as far as Scandinavia.

Chernobyl was a bad reactor design (used positive feedback) run by incompetent people (they were running tests without consulting with nuclear experts). Using them as a benchmark for evaluating the safety of nuclear power is like judging the safety of automobiles based on the driving record of Lindsey Lohan.

[GWiz]

But politicians don't live in a world of grey. They have to decide.

What should we do about our nuclear reactors?

Heck, what about AECL and Chalk River? They were once in the news and now they're not. (We live in a world where the 15 minutes of fame no longer applies to people: it applies to catastrophes.)

Your guess is as good as mine as to what should be done with Nuclear Reactors, they're man-made, ergo things can/will go wrong...

Canada CAN'T shut down it's Nuclear Reactors, the public wouldn't stand for it, so that's NOT an option unless Canada changes it's entire electrical infrastructure, and even then the US would have to do the same, which they won't, to make a difference...

Incidentally, we're talking 50-100 years into the future, not retroactively when it comes to Canada's Nuclear energy...

[segnosaur]

Solar panels are not very efficient, and you would need a very large area to provide significant power.

With more investment, they can be efficient.

From what I understand, they're actually reaching the efficiency limit of solar cell technology.

A solar farm is being built just outside of Ottawa.

Yeah, head something about that. However, at this point in time we can't really tell if its being done because its a "good idea", or because its just politically popular (i.e. "vote for me! look how green I am")

As others have pointed out... even if you had 'local' wind/solar power, the unreliability of these types of sources mean that you will still need a rather significant electrical grid capable of transferring power from hundreds of kilometers away.

More of a mesh grid would help solve that issue between multiple sites.

Its not the topology that's the issue. Its the distance. (e.g. 2 solar farms 50 km apart are probably going to have to deal with the same cloudy conditions.)

So, in a house, and this tech already exists, at night you can use the batteries to generate the stored power, or use grid power. And with a combo solution you can have wind, or solar, or both on a good day. it's a multiple/integrated solution approach.

Of course, by living outside of town, you might end up requiring more gas (i.e. fossil fuel) to commute, and its possible that your home will be less energy efficient (after all, in the winter you wouldn't benefit from the "urban heat island" effect of the city.)

I live in Ottawa, and there is no benefit of an urban heat island in the winter. None. -20 C is still -20 C.

Actually, I believe there is an 'urban heat island' effect. The city even seems to be planning for it in its design guidelines.

http://ottawa.ca/residents/planning/design_plan_guidelines/completed/high_rise_housing/design_guidelines_en-05.html

Of course, on the other hand, such heating will also increase air conditioning costs in the summer.

And lets face it: There have been 2 recent "major" power problems since I started working: The ice storm (around 3 weeks of power problems in some areas), and the 2003 blackout (power out for 5 days in some areas, but it affected me for only 1 day.) That's around a 99.5% availability ratio. Is it really worth uprooting your life, adding hours of possible commute time, only to avoid the 0.5% of time that you might be "out of power"? (Not that some people might not like country living for other reasons, but to move out of the city just because you want to be 'self sufficient' when it comes to power doesn't seem like the best laid out plan.)

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

Yeah but there comes a time when 'planning for the worse' becomes excessive and counterproductive.

For example, there is a chance that there will be another power failure here in Ottawa. As I pointed out before, if your 'plan for the worst' involves moving to the country so you can put up a wind farm, its counterproductive: You will probably suffer more (paying for gas, commute time, etc.) than you will benefit for the >0.5% of time that the power will likely be out.

[Moonbox]

Chernobyl was a bad reactor design (used positive feedback) run by incompetent people (they were running tests without consulting with nuclear experts). Using them as a benchmark for evaluating the safety of nuclear power is like judging the safety of automobiles based on the driving record of Lindsey Lohan.

Lol Lindsey Lohan. That was funny.

You're totally right about Chernobyl though. The Soviet Union was probably the most environmentally disastrous regime to ever exist on Earth. Their environmental and safety standards were atrocious and their Chernobyl design and the safety standards within were pathetic.

[Keepitsimple]

If anything, I think the Japan incident proves how safe nuclear reactors really are for Canada. Those 40 year old Japanese plants almost withstood the very worst one-two punch that Mother Nature could inflict on them. Here in Canada, we don't have to worry about massive earthquakes of 8.9 magnitude and tsunamis.....and reactors being built today will be even safer than the ones in Japan. Bring it on.....build them by the dozen.

[scouterjim]

With events in Japan, an earthquake and then a tsunami, the danger of nuclear energy has become all too apparent.

Apologists of nuclear energy say that safeguards protect against all "likely" events. They talk in terms of probability and chance. Well, did any engineer in Japan consider the risk of building a nuclear power station beside the ocean in an earthquake prone country? Did no one consider the danger of an earthquake, and then a tsunami?

And did no engineer think of protecting the diesel generators to ensure that water pumps would continue to operate despite an earthquake and tsunami flooding?

----

Many Canadians are fearful of CO2 emissions, global warming/climate change.

Nuclear energy is a source of electricity that does not emit CO2. We have nuclear generating stations in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. Ontario relies on nuclear energy for about 50% of its electricity. The federal government financed the research and development of Canada's nuclear energy industry.

Should we shut these nuclear stations down? Should we build more? What if our engineers have not thought through all the probabilities.

----

IMHO, like so much else in this modern world of Internet news, we will hear about this "nuclear meltdown" in Japan for another week or so and then we won't hear about it at all. (I admit, I could be wrong.) And in fact, the Fukushima plant has resulted in radiation affecting a handful of people, and in dosages amounting to several xrays a year.

Meanwhile, millions of people suffer around the world for a lack of electricity. And many more complain about fossil fuel electrical generating stations.

Personally, I am quite happy that nuclear reactors are not allowed in BC.

[Wilber]

France produces almost 80% of its power from nuclear plants and exports 18% of its power making it the worlds largest net exporter of electricity.

Wiki

[M.Dancer]

France produces almost 80% of its power from nuclear plants and exports 18% of its power making it the worlds largest net exporter of electricity.

Wiki

I would have thought Canada was with James Bay...

[Scotty]

I've only seen one hot water gas leak from a nuclear reactor (and potential melt from within the range I was a little out of it due to having my adams apple ruptured at the time though) and I lived. I think Canadians just need to be prepared to deploy giant high tempetature suction baloons that can go overtop of reactors in case of explosion.. and giant pits.

Also things like "dependening on plant electricity to save the plant in case of failure" is just a bad design position. You have to design it so that if it fails, it stops itself without the need of itself to stop itself.

Really though FUSSION technology is where it is at. Canada should migrate its fIssion facilitities to fUssion facilities.

You say that as if it's an option.

[Moonbox]

Also things like "dependening on plant electricity to save the plant in case of failure" is just a bad design position. You have to design it so that if it fails, it stops itself without the need of itself to stop itself.

They do. Do you think something like a hospital would have a backup diesel generator, but a nuclear power plant wouldn't? You don't have a clue. They had backup generators in Japan, it's just a tsunami and a 9.0 earthquake sometimes cause problems.

Really though FUSSION technology is where it is at. Canada should migrate its fIssion facilitities to fUssion facilities.

The best and most expensive fusion reactors in the world have managed to output something stupid like 1.000000001 x more energy than it has cost to contain the reaction, and it cost BILLIONS and BILLIONS to build. We're 20-30 years MINIMUM from even pioneering commercial use.

[eyeball]

I've changed my mind. Shut them down.

Why? For the same reason I'd be crazy to store old creosote on top of my wood-stove.

How Nuclear Fuel Waste is Managed in Canada

Current Industry Practice

In Canada, nuclear waste producers and owners are responsible for interim management of used nuclear fuel. After remote-controlled removal from reactors, used fuel bundles are stored in water-filled pools, called Irradiated Fuel Bays, to cool and shield them until their heat and radioactivity declines. The bays are built of reinforced concrete, lined to prevent leaks, and designed to withstand earthquakes. Special tools are used to remotely manipulate the fuel bundles under water and move them into storage trays or modules.

Fukushima's Spent Fuel Rods Pose Grave Danger

[ToadBrother]

I've changed my mind. Shut them down.

Why? For the same reason I'd be crazy to store old creosote on top of my wood-stove.

Fukushima's Spent Fuel Rods Pose Grave Danger

That has to more to do with inappropriate storage of hazardous materials. Part of the problem is that Japan isn't blessed with formations like the Canadian Shield and other very old geological formations where one can store such materials for millions of years.

[August1991]

Personally, nuclear power comes with too high of a risk, and I have advocated for multiple smaller wind farms and solar farms. We need to decentralize the power grid. That's just my personal view.

But wind/solar sources of energy carry their own risks. Even reducing energy consumption carries risk.

How many people would die if we shut down coal-based electrical generating stations?

Edited March 17, 2011 by August1991

[Shwa]

That has to more to do with inappropriate storage of hazardous materials. Part of the problem is that Japan isn't blessed with formations like the Canadian Shield and other very old geological formations where one can store such materials for millions of years.

That's right, and the Canadian Shield has plenty of hills for everyone to run to when all hell breaks loose at the nukes.

In Pickering Ontario, home of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, there is has been a surge of people buying up iodine pills in the local pharamacies. No doubt a residual effect of the news from Japan. Kind of like this thread.

[Molly]

Chernobyl was a bad reactor design (used positive feedback) run by incompetent people (they were running tests without consulting with nuclear experts). Using them as a benchmark for evaluating the safety of nuclear power is like judging the safety of automobiles based on the driving record of Lindsey Lohan.

Whoa! Chernobyl exists! (Ms. Lohan exists!)

You can't accuratelty assess safety without figuring them in. 'Foolproof' must stymie even the most persistent, powerful and ingenious of fools!

On that happy note, I'm reminded of the removal of Linda Keene for the shutdown of unsafe units that lacked adequate fail-safe backups. How many demonstrations of high-risk hubris must we witness before we realize that we must plan the 'arrogant jerk' factor into safety equations?

[Saipan]

Perhaps.... however, while the coal plant is running it will produce:

- air pollution, contributing to the green house effect, acid rain, etc.

Volcanos do far more of the same and nothing happen. Only imaginary "problem".

"Acid" rain was always here. Take water from 1000 year old iceberg you get the same average 6pH acidic water (pH kit available in aquarium stores) Btw, ashes are good. I put lot of my ashes on my lawn and garden. It cuts down on soil acidity and fertilizes.

This also doesn't include all those people killed during mining operations

Question of safety. Super miniscule in comparison to car deaths, or too much food deaths.

Chernobyl was a bad reactor design

Same excuse will be always used. Just like in Japan now.

[Wilber]

Except for the west coast, Canada is a pretty safe place to put a nuclear plant. Stable geology and not at risk to tsunamis. Other than the possibility of a tornado in some parts of the country, there is little in the way of natural threats to these plants and greater access to fresh water to cool them than just about any other country.

However this situation in Japan resolves itself, there will be nuclear power plants. Fact is, many countries like Japan have few alternatives for generating large amounts of electric power other than burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. There will be a massive rethink on how to make these plants safer and where to locate them.

[ToadBrother]

Except for the west coast, Canada is a pretty safe place to put a nuclear plant. Stable geology and not at risk to tsunamis. Other than the possibility of a tornado in some parts of the country, there is little in the way of natural threats to these plants and greater access to fresh water to cool them than just about any other country.

Indeed. We have the Canadian Shield, which is a couple of billion years old, and is one of the most stable geological features on the planet.

Japan has little choice but to use nuclear power. It cannot afford to use fossil fuels like coal, and at least in the short and medium term simply cannot afford to go to other means like tidal or wind power (and these do have their own issues). Some talk I've heard is that they may ultimately move to smaller reactors. Nuclear technology has progressed significantly in the last forty years. Let's remember these reactors may be four decades old but they are based on designs from the early to mid-1960s, which means the actual technology is closer to fifty years old.

[eyeball]

Nuclear technology has progressed significantly in the last forty years.

The technology to monitor and report on situations has likewise progressed but just look at how rapidly credibility melts down when things hit the fan.

This will be the biggest impediment to nuclear energy in the future bar none. Good thing too.

[ToadBrother]

The technology to monitor and report on situations has likewise progressed but just look at how rapidly credibility melts down when things hit the fan.

This will be the biggest impediment to nuclear energy in the future bar none. Good thing too.

And how is this any different from any other form of energy production? The problem in Japan isn't credibility, it's the problems that are always present after a major disaster. The people in the know are too damned busy to be constantly updating their superiors, and their superiors don't know enough to accurately report things to the press.

At any rate, Japan has few options to nuclear energy. Unless folks plan on living without electricity, I posit that we have to put up with some risk regardless of what form of electrical generation we use.